A human shield changes his mind

[DemoCoder]

A peace protester, Assyrian, and human shield returns from Iraq, a changed man. His secret footage, filmed without Iraqi government "minders" will be shown on ABC this week in an interview with Barber Walters.

http://assyrianchristians.com/i_was_wrong_mar_26_03.htm

Of course, for Saddam lovers like CosmoKramer, I doubt this will mean anything, even if Iraqi's are screaming silently for help.

(yes, I know the Church of the East are not exactly a high profile reliable source, so let's leave out speculation about the author, and wait for the footage on ABC. If there is really 14hrs of footage of Iraqis speaking out, it is definately some new data to consider)

[epicstruggle]

I wish we could ship all the people who are protesting agains the war to iraq. so they can see first hand what type of life they want the iraqis to continue to live in. If anyone finds out exactly when the footage will be shown on abc please post here. thanks

later,

[RussSchultz]

Through some fluke either by my invitation as a religious person and or my family connection I was not subject to any government `minders` at any time throughout my stay in Iraq.

As far as I can tell I was the only person including the media, Human Shields and others in Iraq without a Government `minder` there to guard.

This makes me extremely suspicious. (that it is "propaganda")


edit: clarify what it makes me suspicious of.

[Tahir2]

Propaganda.

Forget it ... the fight is on. I pray it will be swift and with minimal loss of innocent life.

[kyleb]

me too. i also hope we get out of there quick when it is over too, and turn our attention to solving the issues in Palestine.

[DemoCoder]

Here's more deceitful propaganda :)

Iraqi civilians feed starving US Marines
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030329/ts_afp/iraq_war_civilians_030329211652

[Sabastian]

Yeah, the people who are protesting this removal of Sadam are real fools for the most part. Mostly they have absolutely no clue of what to do about Sadam and the Iraq situation. Also it isn't difficult to see that many of the protestors are less then sympathetic to capitalism and the US anyway.

But what if we let the UN have its way and continue to let Sadam rule in Iraq? Well it is widely supposed that Iraq would never submit to the weapons inspectors fully this in turn would have the trade embargo continued where the oil for food program is in place... Now this may seem like a humanitarian idea but lets consider that the continuance of that program is not in the Iraqi citizens best interest. The program seems like UN sanctioned barter and the countries that are involved with trading oil for food are really ripping the people of Iraq off. Consider that the state supplying the food is buying food from private organizations and then bartering these goods that are already bought and paid for .... for oil no less.

Now it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that first off that the state supplying the food rations are subsidizing the private company whom is supplying the food. The the state turns around and does the oil for food barter... if you think about this it is a real scam. But the UN was protecting this oil for food program and was more then willing to let the process continue from what I have seen. So as it turns out the motives of the countries opposing regime change in Iraq may be viewed as something less then altruistic. First they have their subsidized private enterprise pork barreling that they will lose and after the government is changed in Iraq these countries will have to pay money for the oil. This really is a plus plus arrangement I believe consider that Iraqs oil base is at least as rich as Saudi Arabia. This regime change may end up a massive boon for the world economy driving the price of oil down to nearly $20 USD a barrel.

Needless to say the oil for food program that the UN has imposed, and is currently upheld as a result of France, Germany and Russians opposition to the war, is no benefit to Iraq or its people.

There is no good reason to protest the end of Sadams Baath party regime, it isn't good for the people of Iraq in terms of his terroristic oppression , it isn't good for the people of Iraq in terms of their financial well being present and future, it isn't good for the people of Iraq in terms of stability in the region. This regime change will end the terrorist training that goes on in the country, it will give the people of Iraq democracy, liberty/freedom and wealth, it will reinvigorate the world economy, it will set a better tone in the region in the long run in terms of the peoples view of the west.(eg as opposed to being evil they will get to see that the west is not what Sadam and the Baath party preach, on that note it will be good to rid the world of yet another socialist government of which the Baath party is, hrm maybe that speaks volumes about the left wing protest ;) .) The US will end any weapons of mass destruction programs that are currently in place. Neighboring countries will not have to live in fear that Sadam will attack them and try to take over their countries.(eg Kuwait, Iran, Saudi Arabia.) The Kurdish people will not live in fear of their own government. Turkey, Jordan will not have to worry about a flood of Kurdish refuges again. Israel won't have to worry about being attacked with scud missels from Iraq again. No one will fear Iraq using chemical weapons again, no one will worry about a nuclear program being developed by Iraq. And finally, this regime change will make other states that doubt Americas resolve in attacking terrorism where ever it is will think twice before they harbour terrorist and their mentalities that support hi-jacking US or other countries airliners loaded with innocent civilians and crashing them into buildings with more innocents as a legitimate means of getting what they want via blackmailing or else face terrorism.

Why all these protestors are protecting Sadam and his oppressive regime is beyond me.

PS : Who is next? ;)

[Sxotty]

But as your quote ways that is all good intentions, we have to wait and see what the reality is in the end. I still support it though and will support getting rid of saddam until we do it, even if the people in power decide it is too costly.

[Neutrality]

Sabastian, well said. :)

-Neutrality-

[Sabastian]

But as your quote ways that is all good intentions, we have to wait and see what the reality is in the end. I still support it though and will support getting rid of saddam until we do it, even if the people in power decide it is too costly.

Yeah one could also say that people whom are opposing the change of regime in Iraq are also full of good intensions. AFAIK there are already many in Iraq whom are already living in a hell of sorts. There is good reason to be hopeful for the Iraqi people at this point.

[Nathan]

You certainly are doing a good job of convincing each other of the righteousness of this war. It's a pity that the UN delegates don't visit this forum, afterall they're the ones who really need to be convinced.

I realise that the UN is not perfect, but until France, Russia and the other opposing nations can be convinced, I will not support this war.

America and Britain think that they have the right to police the World in general (and the Middle East in particular), which is "ironic" given their histories in the Middle East and Asia. I would rather live in a true democracy, instead of one where the votes of British and American citizens have more weight than the rest of the World.

[epicstruggle]

hi nathan,
could you please explain what you mean a bit more, do you mean that you need every member of the security council to go along before youll change your mind?

Let me change the scenario a bit, what if China decided to massacre the people of Tibet. Now you need the UN security council to pass a resolution to do something about it. Now you have an automatic veto from China, and maybe one or two other that china can bully into voting against any action. Now you dont have a resolution to stop the massacre.

does that make any action without UN aproval wrong?

hope you answer the question, nathan,

later,

[Sxotty]

Man epic that was a rough position to put him in, but it did illustrate the useless nature of the UN, oh well it is better than nothing.

[Nathan]

No, I don't expect every country to approve before the UN takes action (I forget what the required percentage is).

Your analogy is unfair; China has the power of veto, Iraq doesn't. Also, it's actually France and Russia that are vetoing. The burden of proof is on the US and Britain, and they haven't delivered.

I understand the frustrations people have with the UN, it is interminably slow. But I also know that Iraq has a lot of oil - and there's nothing the Western World likes more than oil. So the actions of the US and Britain seem more fiscally than altruistically motivated.

I am torn on the subject of the invading forces toppling Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. I would prefer to see Iraq sort this matter out themselves, but that is probably very unrealistic.

Like France, I will change my stance if proof is produced that Iraq is producing biological/chemical weapons and poses a threat to the rest of the World.

The UN is right in one very important repect. War should not be rushed into...

[Sabastian]

You certainly are doing a good job of convincing each other of the righteousness of this war. It's a pity that the UN delegates don't visit this forum, afterall they're the ones who really need to be convinced.

I realise that the UN is not perfect, but until France, Russia and the other opposing nations can be convinced, I will not support this war.

What is so righteous about supporting Sadams Baath party? What is so righteous about continuing the food for aid program that keeps Iraq impoverished? What is righteous about not having the back bone to stand up to the piss ant that Sadam is? Why must the people of Iraq continue to live in poverty simply because Sadam is still the leader of this country? What is righteous about protesting the liberation of Iraq? You seem awfully righteous in your judgement considering you have no real good arguments.

If indeed the UN is not perfect and BTW I couldn't agree more why would you insist that all countries concerned support the war? Hell I think that the UK and US have shown some real leadership on the issue not caving into ignorant pacifist throngs.

Yes it is too bad that some of these folks from the UN were not here. If you think for a second that because these government representatives at the UN all have good and righteous reasons for not backing the US and UK on Iraq then you are only fooling yourself.

America and Britain think that they have the right to police the World in general (and the Middle East in particular), which is "ironic" given their histories in the Middle East and Asia. I would rather live in a true democracy, instead of one where the votes of British and American citizens have more weight than the rest of the World.

Often times it seems America seems to be obliged by the rest of the world to fix matters since no one else seems to have the influance enough to do it. On this matter they are settling something that they are concerned about and rightfully so... be it Sadam, weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, middle east peace or the people of Iraq it does not matter which. Consider that all of these objective I believe are attainable to some degree with the removal of Sadam.

Also I find your last comment ... confusing. I don't think there is any such a thing as a global democracy. The UN is effective as it possibly can be and in this case it has not been so with this development the UN has made itself even less relevant then it was.

[Sxotty]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/31/international/worldspecial/31CIVI.html

Another decent story, but things are going to be getting much more complicated soon.

I think Nathan you need to just look at the situation, I don't care what the motivation is (acording to anthropologists there is no such thing as altruism anyway) the results motivated by benevolence or greed will be Saddam who is a mass murderer will no longer be in power, that is a good thing.

[Sabastian]

The UN is right in one very important repect. War should not be rushed into...

It wasn't rushed into ... at all. Christ Iraq had 12 years to fully comply but all they did was keep throwing UN weapons inspectors out and shuffling their WMD around to keep them from being discovered. Then finally the UN put another final resolution in the fall for the removal of these weapons.

But Iraq kept playing their games finally the US pushed the matter to a head and when it came down to doing something about the issue France, Germany, China and Russia came out of the woodwork and opposed the US action on Iraq. To suggest that any of the parties involved don't have anything other then altruistic or righteous reasons for their stances is foolhardy.

I guess my point here is simply that this war was not rushed into. France basically said that it opposed taking any action on the Iraq crisis at all .. unless they did find WMD. But the UN had literally 12 years to do this how much more god dammed time do they need?

Heck I suppose the UN could have sat on their asses until another terrorist attack was implemented and maybe it would have been a nuclear bomb in a van. The mentality that supports terrorism and terrorist activities needs to be opposed else they think they are the righteous and right in their acts of terrorism and that is exactly what we see isn't it.

[Nathan]

Sebastian, I appreciate your views, I just don't agree with them. My first post was probably rather rash, but the general tone of the thread annoyed me.

I'm definitely an ignorant pacifist, and I always will be if the other option is to be an ignorant warmonger. Unfortunately the nature of war is such that the truth only emerges years afterwards, so I can't claim that I will have the chance to be an enlightened pacifist/warmonger anytime soon. :)

In terms of the earlier content of this thread, the point I was trying to make is that this war is not an easy call, and calling people fools for not supporting it is not fair.

[epicstruggle]

nathan, let me tell you that i admire people who are pacifists, one of my greatest heroes is Ghandi. Unfortunatly we no longer live in a world where you can be a pacifist.

I dont know if you ever watched the movie Starship Troopers. In it the human race is battling space aliens bugs that are trying to annahialate all living things on earth. In one scene they show the aftermath of a group of pacifists who are trying to live in peace with the bugs. Let me just say that they were slaughtered. What im saying is that, whats the point of being a pacifist when there are weapons that can completly destroy a cities population in a matter of moments(seconds to days). What will your pacifism get you then.

Im sorry to have to say that the pacifists in Iraq who disaggred with Saddam are probably dead, tortured, raped, or shredded. Thats what pacifism in Iraq gets you. Ill support your right to do next to nothing, but dont hold us back when the rest of us decide to do something about the injustices in the world.

Dont get me started on all the problems with the UN. :roll:

later,

[Nathan]

Yes, I watched Starships Troopers. lol. Your point is an excellent one, epicstruggle. To have a peaceful international community everyone needs to act in an appropriate manner. Unfortunately, someone needs to start acting peacefully first to get the process going. Ghandi is a great example of pacifism in the face of violence.

I like evolutionary theory, and one of the key princples of evolution is that it always tends towards stable states. When you throw weapons of mass destruction into the mix things get decidely unstable. I see 3 options.

1, everybody just learns to get along.
2, we don't use the really big weapons when we fight - a gentlemans agreement, if you will.
3, nuke 'em all!

3 is definitely stable because everyone is dead. 1 probably would be given enough time (and understanding). 2 is more difficult. It only takes one person to use WOMD and everything goes to hell. It's a precarious form of stablity (if that isn't an oxymoron) and it scares me.

It's not fair to say that pacifism is doing nothing. Using Ghandi as an example again, his peaceful protests worked where violence didn't. Pacifism is working towards peace and equality - not sitting on your chuff watching events pass you by.

[epicstruggle]

Ghandi succeded with nonviolence, because at its heart the british government was not evil. What do you think would happen to Ghandi in Iraq. Saddam would have no problem in killing anyone even closely related to Ghandi. Pacifism only works when the government is not evil. Saddam and his regime is as close to pure evil as we have seen in the last 20 years.

In North Korea, pacifism would also not work, since most everyone is starving to death, except the military. The government itself and its leader are more mentally unstable than evil.

In Iran, thats where pacifism would work. The people with powerbehind the scene, the religious (cant remember the right word) priests, are not evil, they just have an interpretation of islam that is very strict. The people in Iran could through pacifism, and elections, and civil disobedience change how they live there. Its happening now, its just taking time.

Back to the point I was making. Pacifism works as long as the other side wont slaughter you for disaggreing with you.

later,

[Nathan]

Evil in real life is not the same as Hollywood evil. The US sees Osama Bin Laden as evil and Bin Laden sees the US as being evil. Who is right? Don't get me wrong, I was horrified by 9/11. But I can see why Islamic fundamentalists feel that the western world, and the US in particular, are evil.

Calling Saddam evil is simply a statement of which side you have chosen to support. I think Saddam is evil too, but I also think that Britain Empire and America screwed most of the Middle East a long time ago. So who was evil first?

Pacifism is not the be all and end all, as you showed with some very good examples. It's slow and all the pacifists tend to get crucified, but tit-for-tat is no solution either. Your country has the ability to crush Iraq quite easily, and history always shows the winner as being right. In 50 years time we'll all be thanking America and England for defeating Saddam's fascist regime, but I can't help but wonder what we would be thinking if the roles were reversed. I'll stick with pacifism because I don't like the alternative of picking from two sides that both display dubious morality.

[RM. Andersson]

Nathan, what you are saying sounds more like nihilism to me.

" Ethical nihilism or moral nihilism rejects the possibility of absolute moral or ethical values. Instead, good and evil are nebulous, and values addressing such are the product of nothing more than social and emotive pressures."

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/n/nihilism.htm

We all must be able to tell the difference between right and wrong.
Dictators that kill their own people are plain evil.[/quote]

[chavvdarrr]

I dont know if you ever watched the movie Starship Troopers. In it the human race is battling space aliens bugs that are trying to annahialate all living things on earth. In one scene they show the aftermath of a group of pacifists who are trying to live in peace with the bugs. Let me just say that they were slaughtered.
LOL.
One of the worst hollywood's movies as argument! Let me guess, you also believe that CNN says the truth only the truth and whole truth, Bush is God's prophet and USA won WW2 by themselves, with a little help from Britain.......
What im saying is that, whats the point of being a pacifist when there are weapons that can completly destroy a cities population in a matter of moments(seconds to days). What will your pacifism get you then.
I don't know. Ask peoples in Hiroshima what war and USA gave them.

[epicstruggle]

Sigh, chavvdarr, you make fun of my analogy but not the point I was making. BTW, cnn does tell the truth (most of the time, with some errors,omissions, and half-lies), Bush is not God's prophet(im a hindu, i dont believe in a single God, but gods, maybe he is a prophet to one of them :wink: ), and the USA contributed more than any country to winning WW2.

What was the casualties of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, several hundred thousand. There were estimates that for the allies to go from island to island to take tokyo and end the war would kill at least 1 million people (civilians and military). The US had to break the back of the japanese people who were know as very nationalists. This succeded and the war ended soon after. I wish they would have choosen a more military target, but the point was to break the will of the japanese civilians and military. Let me state it again. IT WORKED. THE WAR ENDED and more people lived because of it.

later,

[DemoCoder]

I don't know. Ask peoples in Hiroshima what war and USA gave them.

You mean the peoples in Hiroshima and elsewhere who invaded Korea, Mongolia, China, Vietnam, and many other pacfic rim countries, and raped and pillaged their way through, like Nanking?

The peoples who attacked the US and killed 2500 sailors?

The peoples who, on Okinawa, killed themselves and their families rather than surrender?

The peoples whos forces sustained 90% casualities in battles before surrender, compared to 30% other armies?

The peoples who died more from conventional weapons than any nuclear weapon, and would have suffered far more from a conventional invasion, and prolonged war had they not surrendered?

You mean the peoples, had they not surrendered, would have been colonized by Stalin after the USSR entered the pacific war?


My wife is Chinese and still harbors anger towards the Japanese for Nanking. If you're never been to the museum in China, I encourage you to visit. I hope you like Japanese photographs of head chopping competitions and women impaled on katanas through their vagina.

[RussSchultz]

So, did anybody watch the Barbara Walters' piece?

Any comments?

[chavvdarrr]

You mean the peoples in Hiroshima and elsewhere who invaded Korea, Mongolia, China, Vietnam, and many other pacfic rim countries, and raped and pillaged their way through, like Nanking?
My wife is Chinese and still harbors anger towards the Japanese for Nanking. If you're never been to the museum in China, I encourage you to visit. I hope you like Japanese photographs of head chopping competitions and women impaled on katanas through their vagina.
Yes, same people. Still droping a nuke on a town seems a bit above the measure. At least first one.
I can see your point and understand it, yet justifying nuclear weapon usage on civilian is too close to barbarism. IMHO.
Same with using 'agent orange' in Vietnam and U238 shards in Serbia. You wanna go , live and have children in these regions?

[RussSchultz]

Depleted uranium is about as radio-active as common rocks.

It is poisonous, however.

[pascal]

Some people say US used more than 350 tons of depleted uraniun during the first gulf war. See what they call the long term result: http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/irak.htm

[chavvdarrr]

Depleted uranium is about as radio-active as common rocks.
It is poisonous, however.
As rocks? Are you aware what is the effect of this "only poisonous" element when it goes to human's lungs when breathing U238 dust?
Still you did not answer the question: Would like to rise children in such region?

[epicstruggle]

Yes, same people. Still droping a nuke on a town seems a bit above the measure. At least first one.
I can see your point and understand it, yet justifying nuclear weapon usage on civilian is too close to barbarism. IMHO.

So you would rather have soldier fighting street for street until the japanese government surrendered. That type of death is better in your opinion. It seems to me you take the option that gets less people killed, whatever that is. BTW thats the same thing that the Coalition is doing. Almost 2 weeks of attack and about 300 iraqi civilian deaths (source iraq, so may be a lot lower). The coalition could have gone with days of only air attack, but that would have raised the civilian deaths. They choose the option with less casualties.

anyways it seems to me that you brought up the point of Hiroshima, but cant see that the end result actually saved many millions of lives in the end.

later,

[RussSchultz]

let me revise my statement. Its not 'highly' radioactive. Its slightly radioactive.

Its still poisonous and not good to eat or breath.

[Silent_One]

chavvdarrr wrote:
Still you did not answer the question: Would like to rise children in such region?

http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/du-briefing-15-3-2003.html
Q: Can you tell me what is the likelihood that depleted uranium weaponry would
be used in an urban environment? And the reason I'm wondering is what the
likelihood might be that children could be exposed to this after the fact, no
matter how much care you take in the targeting, a child being exposed to this.
And are the levels of exposure for children, the danger levels of exposure for
children the same as for adults?

COL. NAUGHTON: That's a two-part question. Why don't I take the first part,
which is likelihood. You use this kind of ammunition against tanks. So the only
reason we would be using it in an urban environment is if our opponents take
their tanks into an urban environment and we have to kill them. So that's the
scenario. So is it likely? That depends upon how the enemy reacts. Tanks are
open-country vehicles. They don't do well generally in built-up areas. But they
can be used in built-up areas. That's a tactical choice, and if our opponents
take that tactical choice you could see that activity. And I think the rest of
it is --

MR. KILPATRICK: I think as far as health effects on children we do know that,
as I said before, if the depleted uranium is external to the body there is no
health effect. What we worry about like lead in paint in housing areas --
children picking it up and eating it or licking it -- getting it on their hands
and ingesting it. And there really is no data on how much it takes to cause an
issue or a problem in children. If you are taking it in orally, most of that is
going to go right through the gut. I mean, they've done studies of this -- of
all heavy metals -- and there's very little absorption of that. And you'd
really have to have a very large internalized dose.

Dr. Naomi Harley, when she took a look at inhalation of oxide, said with a
concentration that's created even while the DU is penetrating armor you would
have to inhale enough to almost suffocate to get an effective dose. So it's --

Q: -- issue in the past -- children being exposed.

MR. KILPATRICK: It has not been an issue in the past. We really have no data.
When we take a look at how much you would have to internalize, you are not
going to get that with casual exposure.

chavvdarrr wrote:
.......andU238 shards in Serbia.....

Recent environmental assessments done outside the Department of
Defense. The United Nations Environmental Programme has put out this book,
called "Depleted Uranium in Kosovo," where they went and did soil samples. They
went and looked for the penetrators. Again, these are the A-10 airplanes
shooting. They found some seven penetrators or the sabot, what you saw coming
off the round on the ground. These had either hit rocks, cement, and
ricocheted. Normally when an A-10 fires if it hits ground it buries anywhere
from one to ten meters deep. But they found seven on the ground, some 13 tons
of depleted uranium had been shot from the airplane in the Kosovo area. And
they have not been able to find any environmental effect of depleted uranium --
not residual other than finding those penetrators lying on the ground. They've
checked water. There have been other countries -- the Belgians came in and
looked at food, water, milk, fruits, vegetables, meat, and essentially were not
able to find any evidence of any increased uranium or depleted uranium in any
of those samples. The World Health Organization has done a similar study in the Balkans. The
European Commission, the European Parliament and the United Kingdom Society for
World Society has also published a report on looking at all that data. So we
have outside of DOD, outside the United States, organizations taking a look at
what are the environmental effects, and they are consistent in their finding
that there is no environmental effect in an area where depleted uranium has
been shot

pascal wrote:
See what they call the long term result: http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/irak.htm
Interesting to note that the link provided by pascal is from Iraqi scietific research. In responce to that link I offer the following quotes: http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/du-briefing-15-3-2003.html
COL. NAUGHTON: Well, you need to look at the environment of the context where
people are asking us questions -- who's asking the question? The Iraqis tell us
terrible things happened to our people because you used it last time. Why do
they want it to go away? They want it to go away because we kicked the crap out
of them -- okay? I mean, there's no doubt that DU gave us a huge advantage over
their tanks. They lost a lot of tanks. Their soldiers can't be really amused at
the idea of going out in basically the same tanks with some slight improvements
and taking on Abrams again. That has got to be a huge morale -- so wouldn't it
be great if we could convince the world to make the U.S. give up DU?

Q: So it's basically you're saying the Iraqis are behind any sort of effort --

COL. NAUGHTON: And other countries that are not friendly to the United States

MR. KILPATRICK: Let me just address the ill people in Basra. It's been in the
media a great deal, and reporters have gone and seen children with birth
defects, children with cancer, adults with cancer, with other ills. The World
Health Organization went into that area and took a look at what it would take
to do the appropriate epidemiological medical studies to understand why are
people ill in this area of the world. They laid out that requirement of that
kind of study and said the World Health Organization is capable and willing to
do this. And the government of Iraq said no. Unless that study is done, it is
going to be very difficult to try to understand what is behind the large number
of people being ill. If you go to the MD Anderson Hospital in Houston and say
are people in Houston ill with cancers based on people coming into a cancer
treatment center, you would get a skewed impression of the rates of cancer in
Houston. And so I think when you take a look at Basra it is the kind of medical
center in that part of Iraq that anybody who is ill would gravitate toward that
area.

When we take a look at where were the tank battles in the Gulf War, there were
no tank battles near population areas. And, as we said before, this oxide
doesn't blow around. It is very heavy, and when it falls to ground it stays
there, and the fact that it moves on down into the sand. So from a perspective
of could depleted uranium be playing a role from a medical standpoint, no. But
there clearly are ill people there.

[pascal]

Interresting. There are many more links here with many positions: http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/ud_main.html

[Silent_One]

Interresting. There are many more links here with many positions:
Yes, I saw that too.

[kyleb]

lol Silent_One, you just don't give any credit to the ones that are anything but rosy eh?

Nathan, what you are saying sounds more like nihilism to me.

nihilism would be to say that none of it mattered at all, what Nathan presented sounded a lot more like rationalism to me, and i think you are suffering from an over emphases on dualism RM. Andersson. there is much between nihilism and asceticism, and plenty a reason to try and keep close to middle ground.

[Silent_One]

kyleb wrote:lol Silent_One, you just don't give any credit to the ones that are anything but rosy eh?

Why don't you say that about pascal? (Not that I'd ever expect you too) All I did was offer a counter point of view to his link....and if you noticed where I got the information from, that he's refering to in his last post, that there are many links with differing positions.

[Sabastian]

lol Silent_One, you just don't give any credit to the ones that are anything but rosy eh?

Nathan, what you are saying sounds more like nihilism to me.

nihilism would be to say that none of it mattered at all, what Nathan presented sounded a lot more like rationalism to me, and i think you are suffering from an over emphases on dualism RM. Andersson. there is much between nihilism and asceticism, and plenty a reason to try and keep close to middle ground.

People whom take up this train of thought are more often called moral relativist. The problem with such thinking is that it is purely used from a critical point of view. But... when such thinkers suggest another solution is better they quickly begin to look hypocritical. Pacifism is not a solution in fact it is an anti solution that simply amounts to wishful thinking. Whatever the philosophy is in the end Pacifist do nothing and expect that doing nothing will somehow magically get them their desired outcome.

I would suggest to you though that behind Pacifism are other political agendas. Consider the massive slaughter that Russia conducted in Chechnia.... where were the throngs of ignorant pacifist declaring "NO WAR" add nausium? Simply put this is a result of anti democratic/capitalist movement in the world. It has little or nothing to do with the people of Iraq and everything to do with whom is conducting the effort.

When the left gets a chance to demonize the US they do at every turn even if it means supporting the Islamic religion of which makes Christianity look like childes play. Never mind the massive human rights issues going on in Iraq or for that matter all over the Middle East. The left has their sights on the US, capitalism and democracy. They view the US the same way the Islamic fundamentalist do it seems, as the head of a snake. Needless to say their perspective is greatly exaggerated and both could be said to be blinded by their bias. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The left ought to be more critical of Islam as opposed to Christianity. They ought to be more critical of Middle Eastern countries then the US. If given the chance these fundamentalist and modern liberals would be at each others throats withing minutes of leaving them in a room together alone. I guess then we would find out how pacifist the left is. Democrats, Modern liberals and leftist in general are being completely hypocritical in supporting Saddam and his regime... pathetic.

[RussSchultz]

Edit...never mind. Anybody know when its supposed to air?

[Nathan]

Sebastion, of course there are political agendas behind pacifism. But I think they are small in comparison with the political agendas behind war, so your argument seems like a cheap shot to me.

I consider an anti-war protest with 100 000 participants, as there was in London, quite an effective statement. It certainly is not doing nothing.

Islam is not a cruel religion and cannot be considered worse than Christianity. Please do not confuse Islamic fundamentalist groups with Islam in general. I suggest reading "The battle for God : fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam" by Karen Armstrong. I thought it gave a very impartial account of Islam, Christianity and Judaism. I read it after 9/11 because I wanted too know why people would do such a terrible thing. Now that I have a better understanding of the situation, I can't bring myself to feel hatred towards Al Qaeda.

In a nutshell, I think pacifism is simply being willing to see both sides of the argument. Calling pacifists pathetic because they don't agree with your point of view only serves to show how reasonable pacifism is in the face of war. It is far easier to resort to agression and violence than it is to understand your opponent.

[kyleb]

kyleb wrote:lol Silent_One, you just don't give any credit to the ones that are anything but rosy eh?

Why don't you say that about pascal?

why should i say that about pascal? where was giveing credit to only the rosy viewpoints?

[chavvdarrr]

chavvdarrr wrote:
Still you did not answer the question: Would like to rise children in such region?
I'm not adding all the quote's cause there's no need for it.

yuet what annoys is that you quote a MILITARY man who answered questions if there is danger...
OF COURSE HE'LL say there is no danger. Dioxin was considered "not dangerous during Vietnam war. How many years passed before realizing the real "power" in it? How many war-enjoyers have SEEN what "agent orange" makes to human genome?
Now military man claims that U238 is not dangerous. LOL.
Still a question:
Would he go & live with his children in such region?
I claim that U238 is not safe and the result is well-measurable increase in cancer-like diseases, especially in small children groups. And what's worst - the peak of it will be no less than 15-20 years after the pollution.
I took my exams on nuclear physics in 91-92, and the professor was very concrete on damages made to environment from Chernobil's disaster and any other radioactive materials. Especially to why the real damage is much bigger - because its non-direct, with damage-peak well ahead in the years.
If still someone thinks that to inhale uranium is OK - he can go to work in uranium mine.

"A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." J. V. Dzhugashvili

[epicstruggle]

why dont you protest against saddam placing his military assets in civilian population. If he did not do that, the Coalition would have no need to use depleted uranium where it MIGHT cause injuries to children. This just is another reason why saddam has to go, he has no regards to any civilian casualties. I wish you people would fight for the people of Iraq and not for the regime. :roll:

later,

[arjan de lumens]

IIRC, most of the radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl disaster was Cesium-134, which is about 2 billion times more radioactive than depleted uranium...

[Crusher]

I hear lead is poisonous if it's ingested, too. Maybe we should be using rubber bullets, just in case a kid picks one up and eats it...

[epicstruggle]

I hear lead is poisonous if it's ingested, too. Maybe we should be using rubber bullets, just in case a kid picks one up and eats it... :lol:

[Silent_One]

If still someone thinks that to inhale uranium is OK - he can go to work in uranium mine.

Don't be ridiculous, nobody said that inhaling uranium is OK. However, there is a danger working in uranium mines because of Radon gas.

yuet what annoys is that you quote a MILITARY man who answered questions if there is danger...
OF COURSE HE'LL say there is no danger. And what annoys me is when people post information based on Iraqi MILITARY information.

O.K. - here's from non military people:http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/gezondheidsraad-du-1.html EXECUTIVE SUMMARY from the Dutch Health Council

When assessing the health effects of exposure to natural uranium and DU, it is necessary to consider both the radioactivity of the material and its chemical toxic effect. Based on existing knowledge of the radiological properties of uranium, it would appear that radioactive contamination of the lungs is the principal health effect to be considered in connection with exposure to slightly soluble uranium compounds in the atmosphere. In this context should be mentioned that the dose arising from exposure to DU is much smaller than from exposure to natural uranium per unit of mass. For soluble compounds, the chemical toxic effect in the kidneys is the primary consideration. The toxicological effects are to some extent concordant with those of other heavy metals.
A substantial amount of work has been done with uranium since the mid twentieth century. Research involving large groups of workers in the uranium industry has produced valuable data about the risks of exposure to uranium, but it also displays the frequently unavoidable shortcomings: namely, substandard information about the actual exposure of the workers, substandard or non-existent information on exposure to other possibly harmful agents and unsatisfactory data on disruptive variables such as smoking habits.
The epidemiological research has not produced any clear evidence that exposure to uranium leads to health impairment. According to the literature, the additional cases of lung cancer among workers in uranium mines are attributable to the inhalation of the radioactive decay products of radon, which is found in elevated concentrations in and around mines. Military personnel who took part in the Gulf War exhibit more health complaints than others do. The extensive investigations conducted among these veterans have produced no evidence that exposure to DU is a causative factor in these complaints

Kyleb wrote:
why should i say that about pascal? where was giveing credit to only the rosy viewpoints?

Do I have to spell it out for you??? Of course I quoted the US Military. Of course I offer the "rosy viewpoint". After all, as I said to chavvdarrr above, "what annoys me is when people post information based on Iraqi MILITARY information." But do you say anything against people who post what the Iraqi Military says???, do you ever question where that information comes from?? NO. You just seem to swallow what others say without question. :cry: There are two sides to question of DU health hazards. BOTH should be looked at and questioned. Be carefull where you get the information from. Avoid newspaper articles (the linked site is full of them). As I said "if you noticed where I got the information from, that he's refering to in his last post, that there are many links with differing positions."

[chavvdarrr]

why dont you protest against saddam placing his military assets in civilian population. If he did not do that, the Coalition would have no need to use depleted uranium where it MIGHT cause injuries to children. This just is another reason why saddam has to go, he has no regards to any civilian casualties.
?h, if only he would be so kind to take down his pants , then to bend down, holding vaseline (made from J&J ! ) .......
Besides, nobody forced Your so called coalition (sorry, it is coalition after all - there are 2 countries so it IS), to go in Iraq.

How much $$$ will "burn" during the war if it goes for say 2 months? 70 mlrd ? (billions?)
How many will be killed? At least 1500 Iraqi people were already "liberated". Is someone aware how many people and children die every year just because they have nothing to eat or can't pay for simple medical goods? And how many could live if these 70 000 000 000 $ were spent for medicine?
Oh, sorry, now you'll say I'm propagandizing communism, leftism, hippism,xxxxism . After all who cares if someone is dying because of poverty, if he don't have oil-wells.

"A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." J. V. Dzhugashvili
Just a thought - anyone aware who I quoted above? Pardon me, if it looks stupid asking such question.

[chavvdarrr]

Don't be ridiculous, nobody said that inhaling uranium is OK. However, there is a danger working in uranium mines because of Radon gas.
(Y)
I like arguing with people like you. :)
But do you insist that Radon is the only dangerous material in such mines? See the topic on this post....

And what annoys me is when people post information based on Iraqi MILITARY information.
O.K. - here's from non military people:http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/gezondheidsraad-du-1.html EXECUTIVE SUMMARY from the Dutch Health Council
The extensive investigations conducted among these veterans have produced no evidence that exposure to DU is a causative factor in these complaints
But it produced no evidence that DU is not a factor.

But do you say anything against people who post what the Iraqi Military says???, do you ever question where that information comes from?? NO. You just seem to swallow what others say without question. :cry: There are two sides to question of DU health hazards. BOTH should be looked at and questioned. Be carefull where you get the information from. Avoid newspaper articles (the linked site is full of them). As I said "if you noticed where I got the information from, that he's refering to in his last post, that there are many links with differing positions."
Mmmmm, sorry, but where/who posted view of Iraqi military ?! AFAIK pascal posted what Iraqi scientists think of DU ?
I was unaware of his sources. And reason behind my arguments could not be found in Internet - I never searched for such info.

[epicstruggle]

chavvdarrr, are you saying its ok to place your military equipment near hospitals, housing, apartments, mosques during a time of war. Seems kinda ridiculous. But anyways the anti war is really ridiculous, so I shouldnt expect to much from it. The Coalition is strong, and has many more countries than you think. Not everyone needs to send their armies to help, it already has plenty. Altough maybe our troops would have enjoyed seeing a french division dropping the weapons and surrendering to the Iraqi. :wink:

later,

[pax]

nathan, let me tell you that i admire people who are pacifists, one of my greatest heroes is Ghandi. Unfortunatly we no longer live in a world where you can be a pacifist.

I dont know if you ever watched the movie Starship Troopers. In it the human race is battling space aliens bugs that are trying to annahialate all living things on earth. In one scene they show the aftermath of a group of pacifists who are trying to live in peace with the bugs. Let me just say that they were slaughtered. What im saying is that, whats the point of being a pacifist when there are weapons that can completly destroy a cities population in a matter of moments(seconds to days). What will your pacifism get you then.

Im sorry to have to say that the pacifists in Iraq who disaggred with Saddam are probably dead, tortured, raped, or shredded. Thats what pacifism in Iraq gets you. Ill support your right to do next to nothing, but dont hold us back when the rest of us decide to do something about the injustices in the world.

Dont get me started on all the problems with the UN. :roll:

later,

Just wanna to add a little footnote here that the movie isnt about pacifism vs military activism... its about a future where mankind is ruled by a faschistic regime and militarism has run rampant... Maybe you should read the book if you liked the movie so much. Kickass action flick for that side of things tho I have it in my dvd collection hhe

[chavvdarrr]

chavvdarrr, are you saying its ok to place your military equipment near hospitals, housing, apartments, mosques during a time of war. Seems kinda ridiculous. But anyways the anti war is really ridiculous, so I shouldnt expect to much from it.
no. But usually people tend to believe that "winners write the history". That's what USA believe right now.
There is no fair war. Usually one either fights as furiously as he can or stops fighting. Contrary question:
Are you saying its NOT ok to use aviation, rockets, cassette bombs which the other side does not have in same quantity?!
What will be your reaction if someone comes to your home and tries to kill you? Just imagine such situation, are you going to fight him FAIR ?
Remember David won the field against Goliath with "cheat".
But really people who believe killing is best practice are so ridiculous, so I shouldnt expect to much from it.
The Coalition is strong, and has many more countries than you think. Not everyone needs to send their armies to help, it already has plenty. Altough maybe our troops would have enjoyed seeing a french division dropping the weapons and surrendering to the Iraqi
LOL. The Coalition .
Let me clear your eyes, as I'm citizen of country which is in that s.c. coalition. My country is in it because:
1. Politics in rule believe we always should be with the stronger boy.
2. They were payed - officially. All expenses for our "support" will be paid by USA. By you. And claim was made that USA will pay Iraqi's debt (1.5 mlrd I think)

You really need such "support" ?

[Silent_One]

And what annoys me is when people post information based on Iraqi MILITARY information.
O.K. - here's from non military people:http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/gezondheidsraad-du-1.html EXECUTIVE SUMMARY from the Dutch Health Council

The extensive investigations conducted among these veterans have produced no evidence that exposure to DU is a causative factor in these complaints

But it produced no evidence that DU is not a factor.

Boy, talk about misreading quotes! It says that extensive investigations found no evidence that DU was a causative factor in those complaints. Repete - No evidence that DU was a factor, not no evidence DU was not a factor. Using your logic there are potentially many causes that can't be ruled out simply because no evidence to indicate that their a problem!!! Thats crazy. :!:

[chavvdarrr]

Boy, talk about misreading quotes! It says that extensive investigations found no evidence that DU was a causative factor in those complaints. Repete - No evidence that DU was a factor, not no evidence DU was not a factor. Using your logic there are potentially many causes that can't be ruled out simply because no evidence to indicate that their a problem!!! Thats crazy. :!:
Sorry, looks like my english is not good enough to construct such sentencies. Still these are my thoughts. Perhaps you should tell me how it should be written?
Edit: I simply overreacted on 'boy'. sorry

[Silent_One]

Sorry if you misinterpreted my slang when I said "Boy, talk about misreading quotes!" No insult to you was meant with the use of "Boy". :oops:

[epicstruggle]

Just wanna to add a little footnote here that the movie isnt about pacifism vs military activism... its about a future where mankind is ruled by a faschistic regime and militarism has run rampant... Maybe you should read the book if you liked the movie so much. Kickass action flick for that side of things tho I have it in my dvd collection hhe

Not sure if you read my comment there pax. i know we have people who just glance at a post and attack, attack, attack. Not sure if your one of them. What i said was that in one scene, the movie shows that pacifism did not work against the bugs. Which was the point I was making in the post, that pacifism does not work against a regime that is evil (or has no conscience).

BTW the movie is not about a faciest military regime, thats the backdrop (although i would disagree that thats the type of government there). The movie is about the battle between humans versus the bugs. I have not read the book, and so cant comment on its content. Which is why I comment on the movie. I did like the movie, and also liked the cartoon series. I should pick up the book, hope its as good.

later,

[Barnabas]

Just a thought - anyone aware who I quoted above? Pardon me, if it looks stupid asking such question.

Stalin.

[epicstruggle]

Boy, talk about misreading quotes! It says that extensive investigations found no evidence that DU was a causative factor in those complaints. Repete - No evidence that DU was a factor, not no evidence DU was not a factor. Using your logic there are potentially many causes that can't be ruled out simply because no evidence to indicate that their a problem!!! Thats crazy. :!:
Sorry, looks like my english is not good enough to construct such sentencies. Still these are my thoughts. Perhaps you should tell me how it should be written, boy ?

Chavvdarrr, the way Silent_One used the term boy, did not mean anything. It was not meant in offence, implied or otherwise. Its an expression like "boy, its hot in here", where boy isnt refering to a person but just an expression. I see SO apologized if you took it the wrong way, but it was not meant as an insult.

later,

[Nagorak]

I wish we could ship all the people who are protesting agains the war to iraq. so they can see first hand what type of life they want the iraqis to continue to live in. If anyone finds out exactly when the footage will be shown on abc please post here. thanks

later,

I wish we could ship all the gung-ho people out onto the front lines, since they want to fight so badly. :roll:

Yeah, the people who are protesting this removal of Sadam are real fools for the most part.

People aren't protesting the removal of Saddam. Stop purposely misunderstanding what people are saying. :roll:

By the way, you care about the Iraqis so much, why aren't you out there fighting? Talk is cheap.

[epicstruggle]

I wish we could ship all the people who are protesting agains the war to iraq. so they can see first hand what type of life they want the iraqis to continue to live in. If anyone finds out exactly when the footage will be shown on abc please post here. thanks

later,

I wish we could ship all the gung-ho people out onto the front lines, since they want to fight so badly. :roll:
...
By the way, you care about the Iraqis so much, why aren't you out there fighting? Talk is cheap.

I tried to enlist to the navy about 10 years ago, but at the time I was an illegal alien to this country. I was told that I could not join. It actually broke my heart that I could not contribute to the security of this country. I can understand the position of the military, but I would have really liked to join. BTW unfortunatly you dont see the point that we dont want a fight, we offered saddam and his regime plenty of chances to leave without any fighting.

anyways,
later,

[Crusher]

During this morning's military incursion to the portion of Baghdad where the Palestine Hotel is, I briefly saw on TV two Iraqi civilians holding a large sign that read:

"Go home human shields, you wankers!"

I haven't seen it replayed, probably due to the use of the word 'wankers', though I don't know why. I hope some of the anti-war activists caught a glimpse of it.